--- 1/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05.txt	2014-01-06 10:14:31.887191387 -0800
+++ 2/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt	2014-01-06 10:14:31.911191994 -0800
@@ -1,18 +1,18 @@
 
 OPsec Working Group                                         M. Behringer
 Internet-Draft                                                 E. Vyncke
 Intended status: Informational                                     Cisco
-Expires: June 5, 2014                                   December 2, 2013
+Expires: July 10, 2014                                   January 6, 2014
 
         Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network
-                      draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
+                      draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06
 
 Abstract
 
    In an IPv6 network it is possible to use only link-local addresses on
    infrastructure links between routers.  This document discusses the
    advantages and disadvantages of this approach to help the decision
    process for a given network.
 
 Status of This Memo
 
@@ -22,49 +22,49 @@
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
    Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
 
-   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2014.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2014.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
-   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
    (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
    described in the Simplified BSD License.
 
 Table of Contents
 
    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
    2.  Using Link-Local Address on Infrastructure Links  . . . . . .   2
      2.1.  The Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
-     2.2.  Advantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+     2.2.  Advantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
      2.3.  Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
      2.4.  Internet Exchange Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
      2.5.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
-   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
    6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 
 1.  Introduction
 
    An infrastructure link between a set of routers typically does not
    require global or unique local addresses [RFC4193].  Using only link-
    local addressing on such links has a number of advantages.  For
    example, that routing tables do not need to carry link addressing,
    and can therefore be significantly smaller.  This helps to decrease
@@ -294,26 +294,27 @@
    the service provider would have to employ other methods of traffic
    engineering.
 
    If an Internet Exchange Point is using a global prefix registered for
    this purpose, a traceroute will indicate whether the trace crosses an
    IXP rather than a private interconnect.  If link local addressing is
    used instead, a traceroute will not provide this distinction.
 
 2.5.  Summary
 
-   Using link-local addressing only on infrastructure links has a number
-   of advantages, such as a smaller routing table size and a reduced
-   attack surface.  It also simplifies router configurations.  However,
-   the way certain network management tasks are carried out today has to
-   be adapted to provide the same level of detail, for example interface
-   identifiers in traceroute.
+   Using exclusively link-local addressing on infrastructure links has a
+   number of advantages and disadvantages, which are both described in
+   detail in this document.  A network operator can use this document to
+   evaluate whether using link-local addressing on infrastructure links
+   is a good idea in the context of his/her network or not.  This
+   document makes no particular recommendation either in favour or
+   against.
 
 3.  Security Considerations
 
    Using LLAs only on infrastructure links reduces the attack surface of
    a router: loopback interfaces with routed addresses are still
    reachable and must be secured, but infrastructure links can only be
    attacked from the local link.  This simplifies security of control
    and management planes.  The approach does not impact the security of
    the data plane.  The link-local-only approach does not address
    control plane [RFC6192] attacks generated by data plane packets (such